E 

2S1 
-TO I 



Nau-jjork historical Sonets, 



MR. BANCROFT'S LETTER 



EXCHANGE OE PRISONERS 



jht.ixi; Tin; 



AMERICAN WAll OF INDEPENDENCE. 




Glass __£ 
Book 



Nttu-Uork historical 0ociet|). 



MR. BANCROFT'S LETTER ON THE EXCHANGE OF 

PRISONERS DURING THE AMERICAN 

WAR OF INDEPENDENCE. 

New-York, Feb. 14. 18C2. 

My dear Mr. Bradish : 

The interest that attaches to the question of the exchange 
of prisoners between our loyal armies and the infatuated men 
still engaged in hopeless rebellion, has led me to look up the 
principles adopted by Great Britain in our war of independence. 
Not that there is any analogy between our war for independ- 
ence, which was forced upon us by a wrongful policy, and the 
transient insurrection effected by a few desperate men in the 
States which knew the general government only by its benefits ; 
but George the Third was devoted to the maintenance of the 
regal authority with the intensest bigotry, and by his narrow 
mind our ancestors were reputed guilty of treason in its worst 
form. The precedents which he established may therefore be 
received as no derogation from his claim to sovereignty, and 
where they incline to mercy, they may be invoked as worthy of 
our consideration. To that end, leaving aside the vast number 
of papers on incidental questions, I ask to bring before the New- 
York Historical Society the few documents which show pre- 
cisely the rule that was adopted, and to trace it from its 
source. 



2 NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

On the 13th of August, 1775, Gage, in a letter to Washing- 
ton, refused to accord to the Americans whom he had taken, 
the rights of prisoners of war, saying, with the insolence which 
he thought would he acceptable at court : 

GENERAL GAGE TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. 

" August 13, 177"). 
" Britons, ever preeminent in mercy, have outgone common examples 
and overlooked the criminal in the captive. Upon these principles your 
prisoners, whose lives by the law of the land are destined to the cord, 
have hitherto been treated with care and kindness, aud more comfort- 
ably lodged than the king's troops in the hospitals ; indiscriminately, it 
is true, for I acknowledge no rank that is not derived from the king." 

But Great Britain was unable to carry on the war with 
troops levied from her own sons. The ministry entered upon 
measures for obtaining recruits and mercenaries from Germany ; 
and Sir Joseph Yorke, minister at the Hague, was asked to give 
his advice on the subject. In his reply, he represented the ne- - 
cessity of adopting a system of exchanges : — 

SIR JOSEPH YORKE TO SECRETARY WEYMOUTH. 

'■' From the Hague, September 5, 1775. 

" First, as to the procuring Recruits ftom Germany, I really think that 
if it is not inconvenient to His Majesty to afford us the necessary assist- 
ance in his Electoral Dominions, we may be furnished with recruits to 
any number, and at a tolerable easy rate. I have been lately engaged 
in much discussion and enquiry about the practicability of such apian, 
at the request of Lord Barrington, and in concert with Gen. Keppel, to 
whom His Lordship likewise applied, and as he is now upon his return 
to England, he will be able and willing to give your Lordship all the 
information possible upon this subject, for he understands it thoroughly. 

" Secondly, as to the military force which princes upon the continent 
may be engaged to supply in the course of the present contest between 
Great Britain and her colonies ; that is a point of a much more difficult 
and extensive discussion. I am to take it for granted that such troops 
so demanded, would be only meant to serve in Europe ; for I must beg 
leave to mention an anecdote, relative to the Hessian Troops in Scot- 



EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 3 

land, in 1745, which was very embarrassing. I mean the difficulty made 
by them to combat our only enemy, the rebels, for want of a cartel for 
the exchange of prisoners, a point impossible for us to grant, because we 
could not treat upon it with rebels, which made the late Duke of Cum- 
berland (whilst the few who knew it were enjoined secrecy) get rid of 
them as fast as he could, and never attempt to bring them to action. I 
am afraid, was it ever intended to send such troops to America, we should 
not find them more pliable there than in Europe, and their fears would 
still be greater, as the objects and the ideas they would give rise to 
would be all new." 

Meantime, the successes of Montgomery in Canada had 
secured many prisoners of distinction. Congress was anxious for 
the liberation of Col. Ethan Allen, who had been maltreated, 
and came, among others, to the following resolutions : — 

" December 2, 1175. 

" Besolved, That an exchange of prisoners will be proper, citizens 
for citizens, officers for officers of equal rank, and soldier for soldier. 

" The Congress being informed that Mr. Ethan Allen, who was taken 
prisoner near Montreal, is confined in irons on board a vessel in the 
river St. Lawrence : 

" Besolved, That General Washington be directed to apply to General 
Howe on this matter, and desire that he may be exchanged." 

In obedience to these resolutions, Washington, on the 18th 
of December, 1775, wrote to Howe, complaining that Colonel 
Ethan Allen had been thrown into irons and treated like a 
felon, and threatening retaliation. To this letter he added the 
following postscript : — 

POSTSCRIPT OF A LETTER FROM GENERAL WASHINGTON TO 
GENERAL HOWE. 

" December IS, 1775. 
" If an exchange of prisoners taken on each side in this unnatural 
contest is agreeable to General Howe, he will please to signify as much 
to his most obedient, &c." 

To this insinuation, Howe at that time returned no answer. 
On the following day he wrote to Lord George Germain, as 
follows : — 



NEW- YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 



GENERAL HOWE TO LORD GEORGE GERMAIN. 

"December 19, 1775. 
" Mr. Washington, commanding the rebel army, presuming upon 
the number and rank of the prisoners in his possession, has threatened 
retaliation in point of treatment to any prisoners of theirs in our power, 
and proposes an exchange, which is a circumstance I shall not answer in 
positive terms, nor shall I enter upon such a measure without the King's 
orders." 

Before this letter reached England, the question had been 
decided. Treaties with the ldnglings of Germany for mercen- 
ary troops having been signed, and numerous recruits having 
been enlisted at the various recruiting stations which the British 
government kept open in the German empire, and the time for 
the embarkation of the troops having come, Lord George wrote 
to General Howe : — 

LORD GEORGE GERMAIN TO GENERAL HOWE. 

"February 1, 1776. 

" This letter will be entrusted to the care of the commander of His 
Majesty's ship Greyhound, who will also deliver up to you the officers 
of the privateer fitted out by the rebels, under a commission from Con- 
gress, and taken by one of Admiral Graves' squadron. The private men 
have all voluntarily entered themselves on board his Majesty's ships, but 
the officers having refused so to do, it has been judged fit to send them 
back to America, for the same obvious reasons that induced the sending 
back the rebel prisoners, taken in arms, upon the attack of Montreal, in 
September last. 

"It is hoped that the possession of these prisoners will enable you to 
procure the release of such of his Majesty's officers and loyal subjects 
as are in the disgraceful situation of being prisoners to the rebels : for 
although it cannot be that you should enter into any treaty or agreement 
with rebels for a regular cartel for exchange of prisoners, yet I doubt 
not but your own discretion will suggest to you the means of effecting 
such exchange without the king's dignity and honor being committed, 
or His Majesty's name used in any negotiation for that purpose; and I 
am the more strongly urged to point out to you the expediency of such 
a measure, on account of the possible difficulties which may otherwise 



EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 5 

occur in the case of foreign troops serving in North Amei-ica. T am, 
&c. 

Howe's letter of the 19th of December, '75, was received by 
Lord George Germain on the 6th of February ; but it required 
no attention, for it had been fully answered by the letter of the 
1st of February. 

Meantime, the siege of Boston had been pressed, and Howe 
was driven out of New England. It was at Halifax that, on the 
11th of May, he received the Secretary's letter, directing ex- 
changes of prisoners to be made, and he took it with him to 
New- York harbor. 

Soon after the arrival of Lord Howe, General Howe made 
an overture to Washington, by letter, on the subject of their re- 
spective treatment of prisoners ; the attempt at a correspondence 
failed from an error in form ; but on the 20th of July, Pater- 
son, his Adjutant -General, formally announced that now Gen. 
Howe had authority to accede to a proposal of exchanging Gov- 
ernor Skene for Mr. Lovell. As much time had elapsed since 
the proposal was made, Washington reserved the subject for the 
decision of Congress. 

"./ufy22, 1776. 

" The Congress took into consideration the report of the committee 
respecting an exchange of prisoners : Whereupon, 

" Resolved, That the commander-in-chief in each department be em- 
powered to negotiate an exchange of prisoners in the following manner : 
One continental officer for one of the enemy of equal rank, either in the 
land or sea service, soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, and one citizen 
for another citizen. 

" That each State hath a right to make any exchange they think 
proper, for prisoners taken from them or by them." 

"July 24, 1776. 
" Besolved, That General Washington be empowered to agree to the 
exchange of Governor Skene for Mr. James Lovell." 

Washington sent to Lieutenant-General Howe a letter, July 
30, 1776, conforming to these votes ; and on the first of August 



G NEW-YOKE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 

General Howe, addressing his letter to Washington, in his ca- 
pacity as General, wrote as follows : — 

GENERAL HOWE TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. 

"August 1; 1776. 
" Wishing sincerely to give relief to the distresses of all prisoners, I 
shall readily consent to the mode of exchange which you are pleased to 
propose, namely, ' Officers for officers of equal rank, soldier for soldier, 
citizen for citizen,' the choice to be made by the respective commanders 
for their own officers and men. You must be sensible that deserters 
cannot be included in this arrangement ; and for the mode of exchange 
in the Naval line, I beg leave to refer you to the Admiral." 

This is the way in which a system for the exchange of prison- 
ers was established. During the progress of hostilities, various in- 
cidental discussions and interruptions took place, as for example : 
it was questioned whether stragglers were to he considered as 
prisoners of war ; whether exchanges should be immediate after 
captivity. When Lee was taken, Howe regarded him as a de- 
serter ; and in this way exchanges were checked, till the govern- 
ment directed Lee to be treated as a prisoner of war. When 
the army of Burgoyne surrendered, a difficulty arose respecting 
the validity of the convention, unless it should be ratified by the 
authority of the king ; but essentially the rule of proceeding 
remained unchanged during the war of Independence, as estab- 
lished on the part of Britain by the letter of Lord George Ger- 
main, of February 1, 1776. 

There is a point in that letter to which I wish particularly 
to call your attention. In the direction for effecting exchanges, 
no distinction whatever is made between captives taken onboard 
privateers, and captives taken in battle or in garrison. It even 
happened, that the first opportunity for entering upon exchanges 
is stated by the Secretary himself to proceed from the possession 
of prisoners " taken from a privateer, fitted out by the rebels, 
under a commission from Congress." Our Government need 
not fear to be as forbearing as Lord George Germain and George 
the Third. 



EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS. 7 

But on this subject of privateering, I beg leave to add one 
single suggestion. "Letters of marque," says Heffter, and 
there is no better authority, " are a legacy of the middle age and 
of its system of reprisals," and he regretted that the barbarous 
practice had not been renounced. By the famous declaration of 
the 16th of April, 1856, privateering was abolished for ever alike 
by Britain and by France, and so many powers gave their ad- 
hesion to the declaration, that to use the words of Heffter's 
French translator, " it can henceforward be regarded as the 
general law of Europe." This being the case, the right of con- 
tinuing the system can belong only to those powers which were 
in possession of it when the declaration was made, and which 
have not acceded to the declaration. It does not follow that a 
new power coming into existence subsequent to that declaration 
has a right to resort to the system. The application of this 
view to our present unhappy domestic strife is obvious. Since 
the United States have forborne the use of privateers, the 
privateers of the insurgents ought not to have been admitted at 
all into the harbors of France or England, or other powers who 
were parties to the noble declaration of April, 1856. 
I remain, my dear Mr. Bradish, 

Ever yours, very truly, 

GEOKGE BANCKOFT. 
Luther Bradish, LL.D., 

President of the Neiv-York Historical Society. 



MR. BANCROFT AND HIS BOSTON CRITICS. 

[From a Boston Newspajxr, Feb. 1862.] 
"MR. BANCROFT, THE POLITICIAN. 

" Since the outbreak of the rebellion little has been heard of Mr. 
Bancroft; but now that the tide has turned, and we seem to be ap- 
proaching the end of our troubles, he appears again on the stage. On 
the 14th of this month of February he addressed to the President of 
the New York Historical Society a letter, of which we have read a 
printed copy, " On the Exchange of Prisoners during the American 
War of Independence." On the 19th of December, nearly two months 
earlier, the Massachusetts Historical Society had accepted a report 
on precisely the same subject, presented by a committee of which Mr. 
Sparks and Mr, Everett were members, but prepared, as was under- 
stood, by Mr. G. T. Curtis. The Massachusetts report, which exhausted 
the subject, and is written ivith a statesmanlike ability and clearness, 
was at once published both in a pamphlet form and in the newspapers, 
and was certainly known and noticed in New York soon after its date. 
Mr. Bancroft has added nothing to its statements or arguments of the 
slightest value; but he has not, in any way, recognized its existence. 
Such things are unusual. Perhaps Mr. Bancroft believes that he has 
acquired a right of eminent domain over all matters relating to the his- 
tory of the United States, or that the Massachusetts Society has been 
poaching in his manorial preserves. But, however ^this may be, one 
point is worthy of notice. The Government of the United States, some 
weeks before the date of Mr. Bancroft's letter, had instituted exchanges 
with the so-called Confederate States, and, as everybody knows, is still 



2 

carrying on such exchanges, taking for the basis of its proceedings the 
principles so well laid down and so clearly proved and worked out to 
their consequences in the Massachusetts report, which was prepared for 
this especial purpose, and which, immediately after it was printed, was 
laid before the chief person in the Administration. The same is true of 
Mr. Bancroft's suggestion at the end of his pamphlet, that captured 
privateersmen should be put on the footing of prisoners of war. The 
Government had done it some time before he vouchsafed the advice; 
and the principles on which it could be done were drawn from the 
precedents exhibited in the report of the Massachusetts Historical 
Society.*' 

The foregoing is a specimen of what a certain sort of men 
in Boston, as elsewhere, can be guilty of in the way of personal 
malevolence. We are Letter able to estimate what Mr. Ban- 
croft has clone than that which (the writer intimates) lie has 
failed to do ; but of one thing we arc certain, and the evidence 
is on the record — Mr. Bancroft's loyalty and entire devotion to 
the cause of the Union. If he has omitted some of the noisier 
demonstrations of patriotism, which seem popular with such 
writers as his critic in Boston, we feel confident that men of in- 
telligence will not fail to recognize his influence in affairs dur- 
ing this time of trial. 

The article above, however, is so gross a misrepresentation as 
to demand a correction. We cannot be suspected of being de- 
ficient in respect for the " Massachusetts Historical Society," or 
the distinguished gentlemen who signed the report of the 19th 
December, on the " Exchange of Prisoners," &c, when we 
deny, as we do most decidedly, that it "exhausted the subject." 
None of its signers would claim that for their work. "While we 
have no disposition to challenge the statement that it was 
" written with statesmanlike ability and clearness," we decid- 
edly maintain that it did not exhaust the subject. The evidence 
of this fact is in the report itself. The writer says — we epiote 
the report : 

" We have seen that Sir "William Howe, in December, 1775, when 
in command at Boston, did not feel himself authorized to make an ex- 



change of prisoners without the King's express orders. We shall see, 
however, presently, that in January, 1777, he had for some time, to use 
his own language, some ' agreement with the enemy for exchange of 
prisoners.' What was this agreement ? and on what authority did he 
make it ?" 

Neither of these questions is answered in the report, al- 
thongh they are obviously the most important points in the 
whole subject. The nearest approach to an answer in the re- 
port is as follows : 

" It is not to he supposed that Sir William Howe assumed an au- 
thority in 1776 which he did not consider that he possessed in 1775, or 
that he acted without the King's permission . . . although we cannot 
trace in any of his published correspondence with General Washington 
any reference to a new authority on the subject of exchanging prisoners, 
there can be no rational doubt that he had received such authority, and 
that a search in the London War Office would disclose it." 

Now, with all deference to the distinguished writer of this 
report, we submit that this must be a slip of the pen — the Lon- 
don War Office is not the place to look for such material. This 
is, however, of no present importance. 

Mr. Bancroft knew where to look for the rule and its his- 
tory, and he has given what the report did not give in that 
respect, and in our judgment, has added a valuable contribution 
to the history of the subject. And we regard the point taken 
by Mr. Bancroft, respecting the privateers, as being quite as in- 
teresting and important as any of the points made in the report. 
As to the influence of any or all of them with the National 
Government, we do not ascribe any great importance to it; but 
we may add our private opinion that the well-known and wide- 
ly-circulated letter of Judge Charles P. Daly has been quite as 
serviceable to the Government as any of them in this connection. 

As to Mr. Bancroft's omission to refer to the report of the 
Massachusetts Society, he had no occasion to notice it. We 
happen to know that Mr. Bancroft wrote the letter at the re- 
quest of a person interested in the subject, who knew that the 



Massachusetts Committee had failed to present the main points 
which are presented in Mr. Bancroft's letter, and the only refer- 
ence he could have made must have been to its deficiencies in 
that respect. There is nothing, then, to justify this malevolent 
attack on the distinguished historian in the character of his let- 
ter to the Kew York Historical Society, and the secret of it 
must be found in some personal or political spite, outside the 
limits of legitimate historical discussion. 

New York, February, 1862. 



1*. S. — The publication of the proceedings of the Massachu- 
setts Historical Society, 1860-2, enables us to add a confirmation 
of the main point in the foregoing article. At pages 346* and, 
347*,the writer of the report to the Massachusetts Society adds a 
note to the report itself, in which he gives the extracts from Lord 
George Germain's despatch, first presented in Mr. Bancroft's let- 
ter — the existence of which he was not aware of when he pre- 
pared the report. He acknowledges his obligations for a copy of 
" the despatch" to Mr. Sparks, who obtained it in England, but at 
the same time states that it had not been printed when he wrote 
the report. This is a mistake. The whole letter may be found 
in the " Howe Correspondence," in the Parliamentary Register, 
published by Almon in 1770, Vol. XL, pp. 318-319— an au- 
thority sufficiently familiar to most of our historical students, 
and which must be well known to many, if not all, the mem- 
bers of the Massachusetts Historical Society. It may probably 
be found in their library, as in most libraries of American his- 
tory, being not rare, although an exceedingly valuable work. 

New YORK, May, 1862. 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




in iii nil i ii 

011 460 198 6 



i «*Vd 



;^k 



—J -4 



\ I 




